A Briefest Comment on RIA

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322650437' post='2856864']
I've been trying to grasp your perspective, and I still don't understand your view about non-chaining treaties.

I think the vast majority of people would see it along the lines of, if the reason your getting attacked is because you attacked somebody else, thats the sort of deal that a non-chaining treaty deals with. I don't think many people try to overthink it as I believe you are doing, and try to differentiate conflicts based on if they were attacked by somebody on a MD or an oA or whatever.

My interpretation of a non-chaining treaty is rather simple, if somebody else attacks you [b]because[/b] you attacked somebody else, non-chaining clauses would apply. I frankly don't think it matters what type of treaties somebody else used to attack you.

These things have gotten much more complex from the days when if you attacked somebody else you were the aggressor, and if you got attacked by somebody else, you were the defender. The onset of rhetoric about how doing the things that caused you to be attacked making you the aggressor and so on has just made things too hard to follow sometimes.
[/quote]
It's the rhetoric that makes the WAPA/Colossus front the only debatable one. When it comes down to it, all that matters is the understanding TPF and STA have on the matter but it can be argued both ways (hence the term "gray area") and that's why I chose to play devil's advocate, it's a point of contention that needs to be resolved if it hasn't already.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322650705' post='2856866']
It's the rhetoric that makes the WAPA/Colossus front the only debatable one. When it comes down to it, all that matters is the understanding TPF and STA have on the matter but it can be argued both ways (hence the term "gray area") and that's why I chose to play devil's advocate.
[/quote]

I simply can't recall ever seeing a treaty read along the lines of

"The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs. Either signatory alliance may offer assistance in such an event but any assistance would be voluntary, [b]unless the attacks were by an alliance who had no obligation to enter the war, in which case assistance is once again mandatory[/b]".

If you could provide a treaty that reads like that, I'd be interested in seeing it, but that seems to be in line with what you seem to think a non-chaining treaty means.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322650359' post='2856862']
Well, that's all fine an dandy (and kudos, I underestimated the depth of your analogy) but unfortunately you don't have a say in the matter.

If RIA and Polar decide that it's in both of their best interests for RIA to stay out of it then that is the fact of the matter. You'll just have to drag your blue balls back home and sit on them or, to risk sounding petty, do something about it.
[/quote]

Everyone and their mother knows that. They just don't admit it because they want to make the best of an inconvenient strategy and it works.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322651135' post='2856869']
In the history of forever, everybody has !@#$%*ed about it, and that gives the right to everybody else to !@#$%* about it.
[/quote]

They continue because it is entertaining either striking a good point or manipulating a bogus one in the PR war.

Edited November 30, 2011 by SpoiL

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1322651055' post='2856868']
Everyone and their mother knows that. They just don't admit it because they want to make the best of an inconvenient strategy and it works.
[/quote]

In the history of forever, everybody has !@#$%*ed about it, and that gives the right to everybody else to !@#$%* about it.

[Melancholy Culkin]

Haha god CSN is such a terrible alliance. RIA is too.

[Diabloz]

Look at my sig.. RIA only signed this because they wanted Polar to defend them if they were attacked by Mjolnir it is obvious enough

Very sad to see the CN world is now so afraid of getting into alliance wars

[SpacingOutMan]

I expected this thread deliver but alas, it did not.

[Sir Humphrey]

Perhaps RIA should counter call out MK for the lack of a "preemptive strike".

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1322636755' post='2856720']
RIA's MDoAP partner was attacked aggressively, no justification or fancy language to make it a defensive attack or whatever, it was flat out IRON and TOP bumrushing Polar and beating them on the head. This is super cut and dry and denying RIA's obligation to defend Polar is like claiming smoking a pack a day....
[/quote]

You are right my good friend. However, I imagine that you agree that sometimes not declaring (specially when is exactly what your enemy wants you to do) is much more damaging. There is a good moment for everything.


Added: this is particularly true when your help would not actually make any difference. If you really want to retribute, you can do when the time is right.

Added 2: This reflects my opinion and not necessarily from my alliance.

Edited November 30, 2011 by King Louis the II

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1322659562' post='2856924']


I expected this thread deliver but alas, it did not.
[/quote]


I want more lebubu in this topic, we were just having fun when he decided not to reply anymore

[ROMMELHSQ]

A time-line of sorts:
[quote name='dvdcchn' timestamp='1321940654' post='2848638']
to your super friends Polaris, also sup TOP
[/quote]


[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322462055' post='2854540']
As for us, I would think a short perusal of our history would show that we have never once in our entire history as an alliance not honored a mutual defense clause, even if we had to fight both sides of a war. So never fear, my friends.
[/quote]


[quote name='SWAT128' timestamp='1322462330' post='2854552']
Do you honestly think we won't be coming to Polar's defense? We won't walk away from this treaty like you did to us. Just be patient and you'll get your war. Or if waiting a couple days is so very hard for you all, then feel free to declare on us yourselves.
[/quote]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322591464' post='2855937']
Because Polar is losing the war right now right? :v
We're still here when they need us.
[/quote]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322644009' post='2856812']
This is not how you want them to work you mean.
Treaties are the "legal" grounds to intervene, it's also the contract that states if you require defending you only need to ask and the other will come.

Allies however look out for each others well being. RIA declaring on TOP makes very little difference for Polar, it would have a bad impact on RIA though. In the end the gains are way too low and the cost too high which doesn't make it beneficial for either.

Now wouldn't it be funny after months and months of maneuvering and working towards a goal, you find yourself to be too prepared and left with no one to take the bait. I would think that would be hilarious.
[/quote]

[ChesterStevensDevonn]

RIA IS GONNA ATTACK MK NOW

[Voytek]

the blue balls are killing us

certainly nobody ever predicted such a masterful tactic as not declaring war at all, you caught us totally off-guard

[Diabloz]

It is very sad, that RIA or SF think of this as a strategy. Can't you admit your afraid to lose your pixels?

Seriously though i don't see how RIA could justify signing a treaty with NpO (MDP) and then saying they don't need help. I think it is quite the bull!@#$ especially seeing SF's history of always being in the winning side. You can sit and watch RIA but don't tell us your loyal ever again!

I am not against SF. But i am against making excuses to get out of protecting a ally.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Diabloz

[Geerland]

Roll the world without fear. Or rather, just RIA's treaty partners.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1322648912' post='2856843']
I really dont see why TPF is any part of this discussion. It's STA's business and nobody else's.
[/quote]
The TPF fellow brought himself up in the first post. Not sure why.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322663372' post='2856974']
The TPF fellow brought himself up in the first post. Not sure why.
[/quote]

Was mostly referencing how I've seen on an occasion or two in the past few days comparisons of RIA's wait to [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TPF_War]this[/url]

Edited November 30, 2011 by memoryproblems

[Garion]

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1322654816' post='2856886']
Haha god CSN is such a terrible alliance. RIA is too.
[/quote]

Deinos too I can play your game too.

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1322656054' post='2856893']
Look at my sig.. RIA only signed this because they wanted Polar to defend them if they were attacked by Mjolnir it is obvious enough

Very sad to see the CN world is now so afraid of getting into alliance wars
[/quote]

Yes, Diabloz. You're obviously correct.

[potato]

Don't worry, lads. I'm OK (albeit a bit late).

Edited November 30, 2011 by potato

[Ardus]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322664274' post='2856983']
Was mostly referencing how I've seen on an occasion or two in the past few days comparisons of RIA's wait to [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TPF_War]this[/url]
[/quote]
Oh, I understand what drove you to bring it up, I just think it was a poor strategic decision. Here you are, with a wonderful thread where I'm lazily nudging RIA. I'm Ardus, so guaranteed 10 pages, all of it to be focused on (1) RIA, (2) NpO, (3) MK, and (4) a handful of personal barbs. TPF comes up crosswise and it'd be brushed aside as off-topic. Bringing up the comparisons present in other threads in the first post starts an argument you didn't necessarily have to have and undercut the original goal of the thread, which was concentrating attention to RIA's delay in a single place. I didn't even have to say anything other than "lolRIA"; the original post could have been three paragraphs singing the merits of Spanish Ham with that tacked on at the end and it'd have accomplished the goal after a couple of pages.

Oh God, where is my off switch?

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1322659910' post='2856933']
Perhaps RIA should counter call out MK for the lack of a "preemptive strike".
[/quote]

Sorry, we need about three more years of bottled up hate before we get there. If that's what those guys are waiting for, better get comfortable, because I'll thoroughly enjoy just continuing to !@#$ on their lack of commitment from here on the sidelines.

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322660147' post='2856935']
I want more lebubu in this topic, we were just having fun when he decided not to reply anymore
[/quote]

Arguments here are so petty and dumb, and extending them beyond three responses is monotonous to the highest degree.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322644009' post='2856812']
This is not how you want them to work you mean.
Treaties are the "legal" grounds to intervene, it's also the contract that states if you require defending you only need to ask and the other will come.

Allies however look out for each others well being. RIA declaring on TOP makes very little difference for Polar, it would have a bad impact on RIA though. In the end the gains are way too low and the cost too high which doesn't make it beneficial for either.

Now wouldn't it be funny after months and months of maneuvering and working towards a goal, you find yourself to be too prepared and left with no one to take the bait. I would think that would be hilarious.
[/quote]
We're not talking about some old treaty here. We're talking about a treaty signed right after word of a plan by TOP to attack NpO leaked. Something that everyone has known that TOP has wanted to do for more than a year now. A treaty with a short evaluation clause. A treaty with a not too subtle reference to TOP in it's defense article. If it was not meant to be used by RIA in this situation than what the hell was it for?

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322666781' post='2857017']
Oh, I understand what drove you to bring it up, I just think it was a poor strategic decision. Here you are, with a wonderful thread where I'm lazily nudging RIA. I'm Ardus, so guaranteed 10 pages, all of it to be focused on (1) RIA, (2) NpO, (3) MK, and (4) a handful of personal barbs. TPF comes up crosswise and it'd be brushed aside as off-topic. Bringing up the comparisons present in other threads in the first post starts an argument you didn't necessarily have to have and undercut the original goal of the thread, which was concentrating attention to RIA's delay in a single place. I didn't even have to say anything other than "lolRIA"; the original post could have been three paragraphs singing the merits of Spanish Ham with that tacked on at the end and it'd have accomplished the goal after a couple of pages.

Oh God, where is my off switch?
[/quote]

And instead we got 10 pages of absolute crap discussing non-chaining treaties and the usual crowd (CSN, for giving that bafoon Rotavele any government responsiblity) being terrible as usual.

My god, what have I screwed up.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322668177' post='2857029']
(CSN, for giving that bafoon Rotavele any government responsiblity)
[/quote]

*checks government roster*

Rotavele isn't government, at least not in the traditional sense (Deputy roles, at least in CSN, are nothing more than advisory & task-assistance roles, such as making target lists, organizing tech. deals, trades, blah blah blah). Only exception is the Deputy Head of State (moi). Obviously it's all an issue of semantics since what one person may classify as a non-government position (advisers, etc.) may be deemed government elsewhere, hence our Constitution.

[Ogaden]

Stop &#$@ blocking the war Delta1212, you're making MK feel bad.